|
Irony
Jan 23, 2022 17:39:49 GMT
Post by freedom on Jan 23, 2022 17:39:49 GMT
On Grace PRC web site the last sermon RVO preached was from Psalm 128. Below are his notes:
COVENANT FAMILY BLESSINGS
I. To and Through Whom
A. The psalm first speaks of the home of “everyone” (1), and then focuses on the “man” (4) with “thy wife” (3).
1. God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head.
2. Blessings come to the man, and are filtered through the man to the rest of the family.
B. The blessed man “feareth Jehovah.”
1. The believer’s fear of God is the greatest reverence, respect, and awe coupled with faith and love.
2. The knowledge of God is a power which constrains us to please Him so he by “walketh in His ways” (II Cor. 5:14).
C.The man and his family “eat the labor of thine hands” (2a).
II. The blessings.
A. The blessing of Jehovah is to know God’s love and salvation; to receive & experience the power of His grace.
B. When God’s love rests upon a family, then all things come to that home as a blessing from God.
1. The father and family eat of the labor of your hands (2, Eccl. 2:24), not have it stolen from them.
2. Even greater blessing is believing wife, for she is as a vine, which pictures prosperity and joy.
3. “Children” are blessings, not financial burdens or limitations to the parents’ lives.
C.“Behold” calls us to stop and observe how God blesses one who fears Him.
III. The blessed home is connected to “Zion” (Jerusalem, Israel); home is nurtured and grows in the context of the church (5,6).
A. Gospel preaching in the church is the primary means God uses to give the blessings of salvation; elders care for souls.
B. And then you will be a blessing in and to the church (5b,6), for see generational blessings in the church and see peace.
C.God’s blessing is not just for us, but so we may bless others and be a blessing with our presence and gifts in the church.
|
|
|
Post by Sophia M. on Jan 24, 2022 18:48:47 GMT
A 1. God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head.
2. Blessings come to the man, and are filtered through the man to the rest of the family
___________
This is what you call the priesthood of all married, parenting, homeowning men.
Rejects the Reformed emphasis upon the priesthood of all believers, which was meant to make an improvement and correction from the contemporary approach promoted in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Goal was then to give all people direct access to a relationship with God and full identity as part of the Christian community instead of vicarious relationship mediated by a more-God-connected person . . a specially designated male, celibate, unmarried, private property-renouncing ecclesial representative called a priest.
"Filtering blessings to all through the man" fits so well with the narrow historic tradition of white federalism/nationalism and its published founding documents in United States, which formally designated only property-owning adult white males to be included in the deceptively inclusive phrases "we the people" and "all men are created equal." Chattel slaves, non-whites, adult men who did not own property, women, and children only received benefits and blessings of the land and nation through their bodily and economic connection, cooperation, or submission to a white, landowning adult man.
The story of democracy in US will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the phrase "we the people". and the story of the universal church will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the priesthood of all believers without the identity politics of a special supreme category of demographic being a go-between from God to all or from national or state headquarters to all.
|
|
|
Post by throwaway2018 on Jan 24, 2022 20:15:36 GMT
A 1. God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head. 2. Blessings come to the man, and are filtered through the man to the rest of the family ___________ This is what you call the priesthood of all married, parenting, homeowning men. Rejects the Reformed emphasis upon the priesthood of all believers, which was meant to make an improvement and correction from the contemporary approach promoted in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Goal was then to give all people direct access to a relationship with God and full identity as part Christian community instead of vicarious relationship mediated by a more-God-connected person . . a specially designated male, celibate, unmarried, private property-renouncing ecclesial representative called a priest. "Filtering blessings to all through the man" fits so well with the narrow historic tradition of white federalism/nationalism and its published founding documents in United States, which formally designated only property-owning adult white males to be included in the deceptively inclusive phrases "we the people" and "all men are created equal." Chattel slaves, non-whites, adult men who did not own property, women, and children only received benefits and blessings of the land and nation through their bodily and economic connection, cooperation, or submission to a white, landowning adult man. The story of democracy in US will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the phrase "we the people". and the story of the universal church will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the priesthood of all believers without the identity politics of a special supreme category of demographic being a go-between from God to all or from national or state headquarters to all. Setting aside the obvious misogyny of the sermon point, this is just so bizarrely wrong even from a PR perspective. What about a woman whose husband has died? Is she incapable of receiving any of God's blessings without a man for them to filter through? What about the single woman who lives alone? Once she moves out of her parents' house, is she no longer able to receive a blessing from God? What does it even mean for a blessing to be filtered through the man anyways? If a woman assists her children with their schoolwork and they get good grades, was that still somehow "filtered" through her husband? I seriously can't understand some of the claims that are made in PR sermons.
|
|
|
Post by falteringfeet on Jan 24, 2022 20:36:57 GMT
He's deposed now, so PRs don't have to explain this lunacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Irony
Jan 24, 2022 21:51:18 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2022 21:51:18 GMT
A 1. God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head. 2. Blessings come to the man, and are filtered through the man to the rest of the family ___________ This is what you call the priesthood of all married, parenting, homeowning men. Rejects the Reformed emphasis upon the priesthood of all believers, which was meant to make an improvement and correction from the contemporary approach promoted in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Goal was then to give all people direct access to a relationship with God and full identity as part Christian community instead of vicarious relationship mediated by a more-God-connected person . . a specially designated male, celibate, unmarried, private property-renouncing ecclesial representative called a priest. "Filtering blessings to all through the man" fits so well with the narrow historic tradition of white federalism/nationalism and its published founding documents in United States, which formally designated only property-owning adult white males to be included in the deceptively inclusive phrases "we the people" and "all men are created equal." Chattel slaves, non-whites, adult men who did not own property, women, and children only received benefits and blessings of the land and nation through their bodily and economic connection, cooperation, or submission to a white, landowning adult man. The story of democracy in US will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the phrase "we the people". and the story of the universal church will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the priesthood of all believers without the identity politics of a special supreme category of demographic being a go-between from God to all or from national or state headquarters to all. I think "man" and "men" could also refer to humans in general in previous times. I can't argue the following points you made and that isn't the point of this thread, but I don't believe the founders of the country intended that document to exclude everyone who wasn't a property-owning, adult white male. EDIT: To emphasize, I am referring specifically to the phrase "..all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. I realized there were other documents that were, frankly, sexist, but not uncommon for that time. We all know the KJV; how many times is 'man/men' used to mean humankind, not specifically 'males'? I was just pointing out that the use of these words was different in former times. In either case, if we were to take documents like the D of I and the Constitution literally, we would find them quite sexist by today's standards. Were they written from sexist intentions? A case could be made for that, but I'm not here to degenerate this thread by arguing that. I believe we have interpreted the Constitution (and actually made Amendments to it to make in more inclusive) and, in this case, the D of I, correctly, by understanding today that "men" = "all people". I just wanted to point out that people used words differently in the past than we do today, that is all, so sometimes the "spirit of the law", so to speak, should be the focus. Slavery, as well as laws like the Naturalization Act of 1790 that was mentioned below has long been done away with, so I'd say we've made quite a bit of progress from those times. The Constitution and D of I, however, still exist as the documents that outline the principles of our country, and I believe for good reason. Are they perfect? No, but they led to the most powerful, economically successful, and free (in terms of personal freedom) country that has existed up until this point in history.
|
|
|
Post by prnolonger on Jan 24, 2022 22:13:48 GMT
A 1. God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head. 2. Blessings come to the man, and are filtered through the man to the rest of the family ___________ This is what you call the priesthood of all married, parenting, homeowning men. Rejects the Reformed emphasis upon the priesthood of all believers, which was meant to make an improvement and correction from the contemporary approach promoted in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Goal was then to give all people direct access to a relationship with God and full identity as part Christian community instead of vicarious relationship mediated by a more-God-connected person . . a specially designated male, celibate, unmarried, private property-renouncing ecclesial representative called a priest. "Filtering blessings to all through the man" fits so well with the narrow historic tradition of white federalism/nationalism and its published founding documents in United States, which formally designated only property-owning adult white males to be included in the deceptively inclusive phrases "we the people" and "all men are created equal." Chattel slaves, non-whites, adult men who did not own property, women, and children only received benefits and blessings of the land and nation through their bodily and economic connection, cooperation, or submission to a white, landowning adult man. The story of democracy in US will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the phrase "we the people". and the story of the universal church will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the priesthood of all believers without the identity politics of a special supreme category of demographic being a go-between from God to all or from national or state headquarters to all. I think "man" and "men" could also refer to humans in general in previous times. I can't argue the following points you made and that isn't the point of this thread, but I don't believe the founders of the country intended that document to exclude everyone who wasn't a property-owning, adult white male.Then you are unequivocally wrong by every possible standard of fact that ever has, or ever could exist.
|
|
|
Post by freedom on Jan 24, 2022 22:22:59 GMT
A 1. God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head. 2. Blessings come to the man, and are filtered through the man to the rest of the family ___________ This is what you call the priesthood of all married, parenting, homeowning men. Rejects the Reformed emphasis upon the priesthood of all believers, which was meant to make an improvement and correction from the contemporary approach promoted in Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Goal was then to give all people direct access to a relationship with God and full identity as part Christian community instead of vicarious relationship mediated by a more-God-connected person . . a specially designated male, celibate, unmarried, private property-renouncing ecclesial representative called a priest. "Filtering blessings to all through the man" fits so well with the narrow historic tradition of white federalism/nationalism and its published founding documents in United States, which formally designated only property-owning adult white males to be included in the deceptively inclusive phrases "we the people" and "all men are created equal." Chattel slaves, non-whites, adult men who did not own property, women, and children only received benefits and blessings of the land and nation through their bodily and economic connection, cooperation, or submission to a white, landowning adult man. The story of democracy in US will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the phrase "we the people". and the story of the universal church will hopefully expand to including ALL people in the priesthood of all believers without the identity politics of a special supreme category of demographic being a go-between from God to all or from national or state headquarters to all. I think "man" and "men" could also refer to humans in general in previous times. I can't argue the following points you made and that isn't the point of this thread, but I don't believe the founders of the country intended that document to exclude everyone who wasn't a property-owning, adult white male. Your interpretation is exactly how most everyone would interpret Psalm 128:4 "Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the Lord." However, RVO narrowly interprets this just those privileged to have the y chromosome - "God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head."
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Jan 24, 2022 22:35:32 GMT
I think "man" and "men" could also refer to humans in general in previous times. I can't argue the following points you made and that isn't the point of this thread, but I don't believe the founders of the country intended that document to exclude everyone who wasn't a property-owning, adult white male.Then you are unequivocally wrong by every possible standard of fact that ever has, or ever could exist. Um, yes. That’s exactly what they intended.
|
|
|
Post by mercy on Jan 24, 2022 22:44:49 GMT
Your interpretation is exactly how most everyone would interpret Psalm 128:4 "Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the Lord." However, RVO narrowly interprets this just those privileged to have the y chromosome - "God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head." I didn’t listen to this sermon. But I can think of multiple biblical examples of God blessing women with no man involved.
|
|
|
Post by throwaway2018 on Jan 24, 2022 22:48:35 GMT
Your interpretation is exactly how most everyone would interpret Psalm 128:4 "Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the Lord." However, RVO narrowly interprets this just those privileged to have the y chromosome - "God deals with the man and blesses the home through the man because he is appointed head." I didn’t listen to this sermon. But I can think of multiple biblical examples of God blessing women with no man involved. Exactly. I would think that the story of the virgin Mary is an example of the ultimate blessing God has bestowed on humankind, and that one was without a doubt filtered through a woman!
|
|
|
Post by Sophia M. on Jan 24, 2022 23:32:20 GMT
I think "man" and "men" could also refer to humans in general in previous times. I can't argue the following points you made and that isn't the point of this thread, but I don't believe the founders of the country intended that document to exclude everyone who wasn't a property-owning, adult white male.Yes, they did intend that. Their intentions were spelled out clearly in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was codified into law a year or two after ratification of the original US Constitution. immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/ The history of specific immigration laws/restrictions/quotas to favor or restrict immigrants based on their country of origin shows that lawmakers held up this principle for a long time after. Same for the history of different people groups' access to the vote in US elections. True that writers of English documents traditionally used the generic use of the word "man" to refer to all humankind. . but the drafters and founders did not intend any full citizenship inclusion for all of the humans living and settled on this land when they declared their own right to govern and represent themselves. They had a specific kind of person in mind to rule and lead and own the territory, the country and its resources and its wealth. I don't think reserving power for a restricted set of humans (based on gender/ethnicity/physical appearance or wealth) is sustainable for a nation that aspires to be representative democracy. I don't think a similar approach is sustainable in organizations that aspire to root their social identity and hopes for flourishing in the Way of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by fellowhuman on Jan 25, 2022 1:36:11 GMT
I didn’t listen to this sermon. But I can think of multiple biblical examples of God blessing women with no man involved. Exactly. I would think that the story of the virgin Mary is an example of the ultimate blessing God has bestowed on humankind, and that one was without a doubt filtered through a woman! ...by means of a forced pregnancy that would have caused untold amounts of social trouble, yes.
|
|
|
Irony
Jan 25, 2022 1:45:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by fellowhuman on Jan 25, 2022 1:45:55 GMT
I think "man" and "men" could also refer to humans in general in previous times. I can't argue the following points you made and that isn't the point of this thread, but I don't believe the founders of the country intended that document to exclude everyone who wasn't a property-owning, adult white male.Yes, they did intend that. Their intentions were spelled out clearly in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was codified into law a year or two after ratification of the original US Constitution. immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/ The history of specific immigration laws/restrictions/quotas to favor or restrict immigrants based on their country of origin shows that lawmakers held up this principle for a long time after. Same for the history of different people groups' access to the vote in US elections. True that writers of English documents traditionally used the generic use of the word "man" to refer to all humankind. . but the drafters and founders did not intend any full citizenship inclusion for all of the humans living and settled on this land when they declared their own right to govern and represent themselves. They had a specific kind of person in mind to rule and lead and own the territory, the country and its resources and its wealth. I don't think reserving power for a restricted set of humans (based on gender/ethnicity/physical appearance or wealth) is sustainable for a nation that aspires to be representative democracy. I don't think a similar approach is sustainable in organizations that aspire to root their social identity and hopes for flourishing in the Way of Jesus. I know this is a small point that everyone knows, but I just want to add to this discussion that "the founders" didn't have a perspective. Many of them had radically different ideas. As a whole we can say they settled on some documents, but we should understand that appealing to what "the founders" believed has always been more use as a rhetorical point than as a consideration of historical fact. That said, I don't think any of them believed the "races" were equal, I think all of them thought that men and women had different roles to play in society and most believed that females were mentally inferior, and they were divided on which men should be allowed to vote and whether religions could ban other religions locally or keep them from voting or holding office. I'm saying all this without sources, so take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by jojorabbitt on Jan 25, 2022 1:46:15 GMT
Exactly. I would think that the story of the virgin Mary is an example of the ultimate blessing God has bestowed on humankind, and that one was without a doubt filtered through a woman! ...by means of a forced pregnancy that would have caused untold amounts of social trouble, yes. 🙄
|
|
|
Irony
Jan 25, 2022 1:53:47 GMT
via mobile
Post by pemptyr on Jan 25, 2022 1:53:47 GMT
Yes, they did intend that. Their intentions were spelled out clearly in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was codified into law a year or two after ratification of the original US Constitution. immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/ The history of specific immigration laws/restrictions/quotas to favor or restrict immigrants based on their country of origin shows that lawmakers held up this principle for a long time after. Same for the history of different people groups' access to the vote in US elections. True that writers of English documents traditionally used the generic use of the word "man" to refer to all humankind. . but the drafters and founders did not intend any full citizenship inclusion for all of the humans living and settled on this land when they declared their own right to govern and represent themselves. They had a specific kind of person in mind to rule and lead and own the territory, the country and its resources and its wealth. I don't think reserving power for a restricted set of humans (based on gender/ethnicity/physical appearance or wealth) is sustainable for a nation that aspires to be representative democracy. I don't think a similar approach is sustainable in organizations that aspire to root their social identity and hopes for flourishing in the Way of Jesus. I know this is a small point that everyone knows, but I just want to add to this discussion that "the founders" didn't have a perspective. Many of them had radically different ideas. As a whole we can say they settled on some documents, but we should understand that appealing to what "the founders" believed has always been more use as a rhetorical point than as a consideration of historical fact. That said, I don't think any of them believed the "races" were equal, I think all of them thought that men and women had different roles to play in society and most believed that females were mentally inferior, and they were divided on which men should be allowed to vote and whether religions could ban other religions locally or keep them from voting or holding office. I'm saying all this without sources, so take it with a grain of salt. You make really good points. I'd agree with this.
|
|